|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Oct 19, 2006 12:25:03 GMT -8
cascade, it is not a maybe, it is a must for replacing the Steel Electrics. First of all, the USCG is going to pull licenses of the Steel's in the near future without some major modification which is not worth it at this point and time. Second of all, maintenance is an issue cause if an engine goes down, the vessel is out for life due to no more replacement parts being made. Those boats are beyond old and have been an environmental hazzard as well.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 20, 2006 21:52:32 GMT -8
One thing that is crystal clear is the the age of the QotN had little to do with its demise. Its age, and single compartment standard, may have caused it to go down faster. Even that is in some doubt due to the way the QotN's hull was dragged over the rocky shoreline of Gil Island. Had a brand new ship with three compartment design had the same multiple impact along one side of the hull it is probable that such a ship would also be going down fairly quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 22, 2006 11:15:57 GMT -8
The American situation is a little different [WSF] for the IMO - the UN in general on a number of different fronts is fighting the USA on things like the WTO. There is the Jones Act which is also brought into this conflict. Some how WSF is never really mention - in the same way that BC Ferries is - in the Ferry world. I don't know why the different - but yes - WSF does have some very old vessels - which maybe should be replaced. If not for safety issues then for fuel efficiencies and customer pleasure. Cascade -- how does the Jones Act figure into this, other than rules regarding registration of the vessel and its ability to transit between US ports? I took about two weeks' worth of class about the Act but I also admit it was fifteen years ago. You'll get no argument from me that the Steel-Electrics need to be replaced, and I'm honestly expecting that the final report on the Queen of the North will have some interesting remifications for WSF. I'm less concerned about the fuel efficiency of the vessels, though the "cost per person-mile" that WSF came up with to operate the SEs is huge by comparison to the Issaquah-130s. And the "enivronmental hazard" that someone else mentioned on this board somewhere, the Steel-Electrics are no worse than any other vessel; most WSF vessels have had all asbestos removed, and we really are trying to go environmentally friendly whenever we can. Even our cleaning chemicals. ;D
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on Oct 22, 2006 20:36:02 GMT -8
Mention of the International Maritime Organization in this discussion is interesting- with regard to oil tankers, they were at the forefront of opposition to double hulled construction. The IMO has no enforcement powers for their regulations, and the flag of convenience nations which hold the real power in the IMO, frequently pay little attention to the standards they nominally adhere to. The United States has maritime safety and environmental standards that are among the highest in the world. They don't need to listen to any blather from the IMO about the age of the Quinault.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Oct 24, 2006 5:39:31 GMT -8
The United States has maritime safety and environmental standards that are among the highest in the world. They don't need to listen to any blather from the IMO about the age of the Quinault. Darn right! We're perfectly capable of generating our own bureaucratic blather, thank you. Seriously, though, the IMO can say all it wants; we're well aware of its antiquity. And we're ostensibly trying to do womething about it.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on Oct 24, 2006 9:39:23 GMT -8
Not sure what point you're making about the Jones Act.
The fact that the Jones Act survived unscathed through the Canada -U.S. free trade agreement was one of the most shameful aspects of that 'accord'.
The IMO sets rules and regulations- and member states are free to disregard them, since the IMO has only three hundred employees, and no policing powers. Flag of convenience nations like Panama, Honduras, Liberia, and Malta have a strength within the IMO disproportionate to their world stature, because of the large number of vessels registered there, and owners of dangerous old rustbuckets have little interest in observing IMO standards. As long as ship owners have such power within the IMO, it's regulations are quite often not worth the paper they're written on.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on Oct 25, 2006 8:20:24 GMT -8
There was a claim made earlier in this thread that older BC Ferries contained "large amounts of asbestos"- that is not true, according to company spokeswoman Kim Cameron. She tells me in an e-mail that there has been a twenty year program to remove all asbestos from older ships, and that there are "minor, trace amounts left", which, obviously, are all enclosed. The removal program ate up a rather staggering thirty million dollars.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,189
|
Post by Neil on Oct 25, 2006 8:38:00 GMT -8
Do BC Ferries' older vessels still contain asbestos insulation? thank you. Date: 10/9/2006 5:13:51 PM Area of Feedback: On Board: Resolution of Issues Rating: OK , Thank you for your interest in BC Ferries. We have invested 30 million dollars over the last 20 years in removing asbestos from our fleet. We will continue to be vigilant with on going risk assessments, maintenance and refitting of our vessels in order to provide the safest and best possible service to our customers. Our older vessels do contain minor trace amounts of asbestos which has been enclosed or encapsulated, or is other wise contained in normally safe material, for example wall paneling, cabinets, etc. We do have an Asbestos Inspector who oversees all work with asbestos to ensure we are meeting all safety standards. I trust that I have been able to clarify your concerns and we look forward to welcoming you back on board again soon. Regards, Kim Cameron Customer Relations Specialist British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Phone: 250-978-1197 Toll Free in BC: 1-877-222-1949 www.bcferries.com Cascade- what 'management statement' are you refering to?
|
|